The hearings center around allegations of Birch mismanaging the probation department.

After about three hours of testimony the defense rested its case. During hearings last week, the county rested.

Advertisement

During her testimony, Birch said she worked at the Madison County Probation Department since 2006. Before that, she worked in probation departments in Delaware, Putnam and Broome counties.

She gave an account of a Feb. 27, 2012 meeting with John Corcoran, the county labor relations attorney; Tina Wayland-Smith, the assistant county attorney; Darrin Ball, who, at the time, was chair of the county criminal justice and public safety committee, and county Board of Supervisors Chairman John Becker.

It was at that meeting that Birch said she was told by Wayland-Smith that the county had made a decision concerning Birch's future employment status with the county.

Birch said she decided to secretly record the meeting because she had come to not trust Corcoran, based on previous occasions when she participated in labor relations work with him.

On Wednesday, Jon Lovett, Birch's attorney, entered a recording Birch made of the meeting into evidence. He questioned Birch if those at the meeting knew they were being recorded and she said that they did not.

"I don't believe they would want their actions memorialized" if they did know they were being recorded, Birch said.

Lovett also asked her if she was aware of the legality of recording people in New York, to which she said that according to penal law, it is legal as long as the person making the recording is one of the same individuals involved in the conversation.

Following the hearing, Lovett elaborated that basically, in New York "you can record anyone you want" as long as you are also on the recording. What is illegal is the recording of others excluding yourself.

The recording was then played. Approximately five to seven minutes in length and slightly muffled in some places, the recording contains Wayland-Smith telling Birch that charges of department mismanagement were being leveled against her and that there was evidence already that Birch was guilty of wrongdoing. Wayland-Smith also told Birch that another county employee had threatened to file a lawsuit against the county for an incident relating to the probation department and that Birch might be named in that action.

The Feb. 27 meeting was a precursor of things to come.

Four months later, in April 2012, the county filed formal disciplinary charges against Birch. The five accusations center around the time period of February to May 2011, claiming Birch:

o Failed to remove a probation officer from supervising a person on probation who had allegedly made threats against the officer;

o Promised but failed to remove the officer from the duty of conducting pre-sentencing report for the same probationer;

o Failed to follow safety procedures within the department;

o Allowed a probation officer to be present in the workplace while intoxicated.

The county also initially claimed she caused high employee turnover because of mismanagement. However, the accusation was dropped from the list last week. County officials explained that dropping the charge would speed up the hearing process.

Also in the recording, Wayland-Smith indicated the Board of Supervisors had been "disturbed" by Birch's management actions.

Birch is heard saying, "It sounds like you have made up your minds."

To which Wayland-Smith is heard saying that there was "credible evidence" of Birch's wrongdoing in the department.

Also in the recording, Corcoran outlined an employee separation agreement that Birch had 21 days to accept. The agreement included stipulations such as barring Birch from future communications with county employees regarding the situation with the exception of Corcoran himself. The terms of separation also included Corcoran promising Birch, "the county does not intend to publish anything negative about you or your employment."

Birch eventually did not accept the separation agreement.

After the recording was played, Birch testified that during that meeting, she felt that Corcoran and Wayland-Smith were using intimidation tactics in order to get her to resign.

Further testimony on Wednesday, centered around allegations of mismanagement reported by probation officers.

Responding to one of the allegations that she allowed a probation supervisor to be intoxicated on the job, Birch said that when she heard about a probation supervisor appearing at an Oneida City Court appearance intoxicated, she consulted with colleagues and then traveled to the court to see the allegedly intoxicated supervisor herself. Once there, Birch observed the employee.

Birch said she did not believe the probation supervisor was intoxicated.

When questioned about the physical condition of the employee when Birch saw her in court, Birch said the probation supervisor, "walked normally," had "clear eyes" and "her speech was normal."

Birch reported that the probation supervisor in question did have an odor of stale alcohol about her, which was attributed to a jacket worn on an off-the-clock outing the previous evening. The supervisor even offered to take an alcohol test; however, Birch said a county labor relations employee, an employee who acts as a liaison between county employees and unions, said doing so would violate the county employee union contract.

According to County Administrative Assistant Mark Scimone, there are about 90 department directors, including Birch, and upper management employees who are not covered by a union contract. However, county employees working under department heads and upper management are members of various unions, with the bulk of employees being in the Madison County White Collar Unit - CSEA Local 827.

Article 55.2 of the CSEA union contract states: "The County may test for controlled substances (via urinalysis) or alcohol (via breath alcohol testing) upon reasonable suspicion of impairment while on-duty. Reasonable suspicion exists when a trained Department head/designee and one witness have specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, speech, behavior, or body odors of the employee in or at the workplace. Any reasonable suspicion testing shall be directed by Department Heads and designees trained by the County to make such determinations..."

Birch later testified that the labor relations employee told Birch that training for department heads would be forthcoming, and that same official said he thought she did a good job handling the incident and that he "didn't feel that discipline was warranted" regarding the probation supervisor.

Later in the testimony it was revealed that Birch had a conversation with Wayland-Smith regarding the incident -- which Birch also said she recorded -- and that Wayland-Smith said her husband, who works at Oneida City Court, said that he did not think the probation supervisor was intoxicated that day in court.

Moving on to other subjects during her testimony, Birch responded to an allegation from a probation officer that Birch had once told her that she should stop treating probationers "like human beings."

Birch stated that was absolutely not true.

Responding to previous witness testimony and allegations indicating Birch failed to remove a probation officer from supervising a probationer who had made harmful threats against her, Birch said that on a number of occasions she had discussed the problem with law enforcement and the district attorney's office. During the time period in question, the probationer had been incarcerated and upon release would not be supervised. Birch said she worked with heads of local law enforcement to create awareness of the situation and possibly a way to keep an eye on the probation officer after the jail release of the individual who had made the threats.

Birch said her concerns for the safety of the probation officer were magnified after it was stated in a county court proceeding that there had been a state police investigation where recordings of conversations were attempted to be made between the probationer who made the threats and his cellmate.

At the conclusion of the day's hearing, attorneys for both sides of the issue felt things went well.

Birch has been on paid leave since Nov. 29, 2011 when an internal investigation was launched into complaints against her claiming department mismanagement. Civil service law states that Birch cannot be fired until hearings are conducted into the charges.

Prior to the hearing Wednesday, hearing officer John Trela said after the hearings are ended he will submit all transcripts and supporting materials to Madison County officials.

Following that, the county will take whatever action it deems necessary based on Trela's recommendation, Trela said.

Trela said from that point, a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request can be made for the transcripts.

The Oneida Daily Dispatch will submit a FOIL request.

Final briefings, which are similar to closing arguments, will be submitted by both sides by early March, with Trela providing his recommendations shortly after.